Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Arden Hills Council 8 April 27, 1992 . <br /> Councilmember Mahowald asked what cost is anticipated for <br /> acquisition and easement for this project. Attorney Filla <br /> said he expects to have more definite information within a <br /> Heek, but anticipates no more than $17,000 for acquisition <br /> of land. Filla added that he is presently negotiating with <br /> Mr. Reiling to possibly allow Reiling to reconfigure the <br /> pond area at some later time as long as it provides the same <br /> amount of water storage. <br /> Councilmember Hicks asked to what extent the Reiling <br /> property lS benefitted from this project and whether the <br /> pipe installation will solve the drainage problems on the <br /> Reiling property. Graham explained the existing drainage in <br /> the Keithson area and pointed out that several lots <br /> contribute drainage that flows to the Reiling property, <br /> Maurer stated that he does not believe there is a benefit to <br /> the Reiling property, that installation of the pipe will <br /> correct the problem caused by drainage from other <br /> properties. He added that any development of the Reiling <br /> pt"operty will require a new overall drainage plan. <br /> In response to inquiry from Council, Graham stated that he . <br /> believes that all resident questions relative to the <br /> meehanics of this project have been answered. <br /> The following comments/questions were received from the <br /> audience: <br /> Ron Nelson, 4504 Keithson Drive: The letter sent to <br /> residents before the March 9 meeting referred to a project <br /> cost of $140,000 and now that figure is about $46,000? What <br /> constitutes l10verheadH costs and why are overhead costs such <br /> a large percentage? The residents in this area should have <br /> had the "benefit" of proper drainage when we moved into our <br /> homes, so I question whether we can be assessed as <br /> "benefitting" now. <br /> Councilmember Malone explained the letter referring to <br /> $140,000 simp 1 y relayed the worst possible scenario. Maurer <br /> explained the City's assessment manual allows overhead costs <br /> of up to 32% of construction costs and detailed what can be <br /> incl uded as overhead. <br /> councilmember Mahowald said that in this particular case, <br /> actual overhead costs will be much higher than the 32% due <br /> to the large amount of staff, engineering and legal time <br /> involved, but the assessment policy limits what amount can . <br /> be assessed. <br />